role of a collecting Society is to collect royalties and distribute them on behalf of their members.
The membership for a collecting Society of Audio Visual Society in this case should be restricted
to either producers or performers.
In Procedure it will hard to separate the Federation from the Collecting Society unless a new and
functional Society is set up. It is the responsibility of Uganda Registration Services Bureau to
receive applications scrutinize them and then admit those they find credible then issue them with
a probation License until satisfied with their works. See section 61 of the Copyright and
neighbouring Rights Act.
The 1st respondent should consider separating societies like in some Jurisdictions by having a
society for Authors, performers and Producers because the nature of interests from the rights
holders is normally different and as such requiring the separation of Copyright holders and
related rights holders. This is buttressed by the fact that it is only authors, producers and
performers who are entitled to equitable remuneration as provided under section 31 of the
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act of 2006.
The solution in this case would be that Uganda Registration Services Bureau which is the one
that issues Collecting Society Licenses calls on fresh applicants with Knowledge and experience
in Copyright management to take on the roles of a Collecting Society for the Film Industry.
A strong and efficient copyright system rests on three pillars; (a) an appropriate legal framework,
providing substantive rights to creator; (b) efficient mechanisms for enforcing such rights not just
at court level, but also public administration and customs level; and (c) a developed collective
management system. Lack or weakness of any of these pillars would lead to the failure of the
whole system. The Uganda Registration services Bureau should be guided by these principles and
should able to benchmark for best practices around the world.
The ever-widening scope given to judicial review by the courts has caused a shift in the
traditional understanding of what the prerogative writs were designed for. For example, whereas
certiorari was designed to quash a decision founded on excess of power, the courts may now
refuse a remedy if to grant one would be detrimental to good administration, thus recognising
greater or wider discretion than before or would affect innocent third parties.
The grant of judicial review remedies remains discretionary and it does not automatically follow
that if there are grounds of review to question any decision or action or omission, then the court
should issue any remedies available. The court may not grant any such remedies even where the
applicant may have a strong case on the merits, so the courts would weigh various factors to
determine whether they should lie in any particular case. See R vs Aston University Senate ex p
Roffey [1969] 2 QB 558, R vs Secretary of State for Health ex p Furneaux [1994] 2 All ER
652.
What remedies are available to the parties?
8